B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International

CourtDistrict Court, D. Utah
DecidedMay 12, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00286
StatusUnknown

This text of B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International (B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International, (D. Utah 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

B&B PROSPECTOR PROPERTIES, LLC a Utah limited liability company, MEMORANDUM AND DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

VEGA INTERNATIONAL INC dba CELLUVATION, a Utah corporation; and Case No. 2:22-CV-286 TS JOS DANIEL, an individual, District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants.

This matter is before the Court for sua sponte consideration of its jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction and this matter must be remanded to state court. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action on August 13, 2020, in state court asserting a cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant Jos Daniel purported to remove the action to this Court on April 26, 2022, asserting federal question as the basis for jurisdiction. Though less than clear, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to assert counterclaims under the United States Constitution and those counterclaims are what he uses to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. II. DISCUSSION “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”1 The court has “an independent obligation to address [its] own subject-matter jurisdiction and can dismiss actions sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”2 A civil action brought in state court may be removed when “the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”4 “Removal statutes are to be strictly construed and all doubts are to be resolved against removal.”5 “[T]he parties removing [the] case to federal court . . . bear the burden of establishing

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”6 When seeking to remove a case to federal court on the basis of a federal question, “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”7 Absent circumstances not present here,

1 Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143, 1151 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enters., Inc., 864 F.3d 1089, 1093 (10th Cir. 2017). 3 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 4 Id. § 1331. 5 Fajen v. Found. Rsrv. Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). 6 Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013). 7 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). “a case may not be removed to federal court solely because of a defense or counterclaim arising under federal law.”*® When the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed case, the court must remand the case to the state court.” Here, it is clear that a federal question is not presented on the face of Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action under Utah law for breach of contract. Defendant purports to remove this action based on the federal claims contained in what is best described as a counterclaim. However, as stated, a case may not be removed to federal court based solely on a counterclaim. “Removal was therefore improper,”!° and this case must be returned to state court. Ill. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that this action be remanded to the Third Judicial District Court, Summit County, State of Utah. DATED this 11" day of May, 2022. BY THE COURT:

Uprtéd States District Judge

8’ Topeka Hous. Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1247 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). □ See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). © Topeka Hous. Auth., 404 F.3d at 1248.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Topeka Housing Authurity v. Johnson
404 F.3d 1245 (Tenth Circuit, 2005)
Dutcher v. Matheson
733 F.3d 980 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)
Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
790 F.3d 1143 (Tenth Circuit, 2015)
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, Inc.
864 F.3d 1089 (Tenth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bb-prospector-properties-v-vega-international-utd-2022.